Families coming together in prison: An examination of visitation encounters

Abstract

Despite great strides in research on the collateral consequences of incarceration, we know relatively little about family life during imprisonment. In an effort to extend prior work, the current study examines family processes among caregivers, prisoners, and children during prison visitation. Drawing from in-depth interviews with 52 caregivers of children of incarcerated parents, we use open and axial coding techniques to identify the interactions and interpersonal exchanges that take place among family members during prison visitation. Analyses revealed that in addition to universal engagement in Family Time, three familial processes unfolded in the carceral setting: Attempts to Bond, Declarations of Family Responsibilities, and Messages of Reform. Our findings illuminate the complex needs and fragile relationships of prisoners and their families, and have important implications for reentry, offender rehabilitation, and family well-being.

Keywords

families parental incarceration prison visitation

Introduction

In light of unprecedented rates of male and female imprisonment, the collateral consequences of incarceration have been brought to the forefront of the scholarly and policy landscape (Turanovic et al., 2012; Wakefield and Wildeman, 2014). Largely fueled by tough-on-crime policies, mass incarceration has become a transformative force in the lives of the most vulnerable among us (Tonry, 2012). Specifically, an influential body of work has documented how imprisonment contributes to the long-term disenfranchisement of former prisoners and the overall deterioration of families and communities (Alexander, 2010; Clear, 2007).

Since the majority of inmates are parents (Glaze and Maruschak, 2010), scholars have investigated the ways in which incarceration can affect family life. Imprisonment reduces the likelihood of marriage and is tied to relationship churning among romantic partners—all of which contribute to family instability (Geller et al., 2011; Lopoo and Western, 2005). Moreover, imprisonment can exacerbate economic strain for already disadvantaged families. For instance, remaining caregivers become solely responsible for prisoners’ children (Hanlon et al., 2007) and serve as the key source of monetary support for the incarcerated parent (Braman, 2004). In addition, the incarceration of a parent has been linked to poor outcomes for children including mental health difficulties, problems in school, and delinquency—which can perpetuate an intergenerational cycle of familial imprisonment (Cho, 2009; Murray et al., 2012; Tasca et al., 2014).

Despite advances in the literature, we know relatively little about family dynamics during the confinement period—a critical juncture in the reentry process (Bales and Mears, 2008; Mowen and Visher, 2015). One meaningful way for families to connect during incarceration is through prison visitation. To be sure, the visitation room becomes the sole context for family interaction, providing a window into familial processes (Arditti, 2012; Poehlmann et al., 2010).

Prison visitation allows families to communicate face-to-face about parenthood, sobriety, and overall family well-being (Arditti, 2005; Christian and Kennedy, 2011). Through these encounters, there is an opportunity to maintain or repair relationships disrupted by incarceration (Comfort, 2008; Einat et al., 2013). Subsequently, visitation may serve as a “reset” for caregivers, prisoners, and children as they attempt to settle the past, discuss the present, and plan for the future. Considering the vital role families play in reentry success, family interactions during incarceration are an important yet understudied dimension of the collateral consequences of incarceration literature (LaVigne et al., 2005).

In an effort to extend empirical knowledge on mass imprisonment and its ramifications, we explore and identify the family processes among prisoners, caregivers, and children during prison visitation. To carry out this investigation, we rely on rich, qualitative data from interviews with a diverse set of caregivers (N = 52) of children who have visited an incarcerated mother or father in the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC). Caregivers are the “gatekeepers” between prisoner and child, serve as a primary source of support for prisoners, and are highly vested in the post release success of incarcerated parents (Brown and Bloom, 2009; Roy and Dyson, 2005; Tasca, 2015). Importantly, caregivers have “been subjected to various highs and lows throughout the history of their relationships with these individuals” (Turanovic et al., 2012: 920) and thus, play a fundamental role within the family. As such, drawing on their accounts can provide an important glimpse into the complex social realities of families.

Prisoners, families, and incarceration

The “war on drugs” coupled with get-tough policies such as three-strikes, truth-in-sentencing laws and lengthy mandatory minimum sentences have led to a US incarceration rate that is highest among western nations (Tonry, 2011). According to Nurse (2002), these tough-on-crime strategies have created “deep breaks” in family life. Approximately two million children under the age of 18 have a mother or father in the state or federal prison system (Glaze and Maruschak, 2010), which underscores the broad reach of such policies.

A growing number of studies reveal the nuances associated with imprisonment and family life (Giordano, 2010; Turanovic et al., 2012). Individuals who experience incarceration are often part of complicated family systems, characterized by highly dynamic relationships, adversities, and conflict (Christian and Kennedy, 2011; Comfort, 2008; Tasca, 2015). For a majority of inmates, criminal justice system involvement is often intertwined with other challenges including unemployment, substance abuse, and mental illness, which undoubtedly contribute to familial disruption and conflict (Visher, 2013). Situated within the backdrop of concentrated disadvantage, it is unsurprising that the compounded nature of stressors endured by prisoners often fragment families well before imprisonment (Owen, 1998).

Research also documents the enduring hardships of caregivers providing care for prisoners’ children. To be sure, work has highlighted the alarmingly high levels of stress of caregivers and the difficulties associated with caring for multiple children with various needs (Mackintosh et al., 2006; Sharp and Marcus-Mendoza, 2001). During paternal incarceration, mothers are the most likely caregivers of children (Glaze and Maruschak, 2010). In many cases, mothers have tumultuous relationship histories with their children’s fathers, have received minimal support, and are often public aid recipients struggling to make ends meet (Roy and Dyson, 2005). When a mother is incarcerated, children are most often in the care of a grandmother (Glaze and Maruschak, 2010). The majority of grandparent caregivers are employed in low-wage work and have been caring for their grandchildren informally with minimal resources for significant periods of time (Hanlon et al., 2007).

Despite these hardships, the impact of incarceration in the lives of caregivers and children is less than straightforward. Indeed, a parent’s incarceration may not always be negative; in fact, recent studies have shown how the removal of some parents may have little impact or even improve circumstances for families (Giordano, 2010; Turanovic et al., 2012). Other research documents how family members often use the incarceration period to start anew—regardless of pre-incarceration difficulties (Comfort, 2008; Roy and Dyson, 2005; Tasca, 2015). To that end, prison visitation becomes a potentially significant “reset” context that can give rise to possible change. Perhaps most importantly, a prison visit “opens the door to a reconciliation” (Owen, 1998: 125) as incarcerated men and women can be counted on to be sober, available and attentive.

Families coming together during prison visitation

Research highlights family members’ commitment to maintaining or rebuilding family bonds during incarceration (Christian, 2005; Maruna and Toch, 2005). Specifically, caregivers often express the desire to keep the family together and hope that the prisoner is able to resolve his/her adversities during incarceration—particularly for the sake of the children (Cecil et al., 2008). Through visitation, prisoners, caregivers, and children can work toward these aims and establish a sense of normalcy in family relations, despite incarceration and other life stressors (e.g., addiction, unemployment) (Arditti, 2005; Snyder, 2009).

The visitation setting represents a fresh slate for family interaction as prisoners are substance free, their whereabouts are known, and they are ready and willing to communicate for the first time in a long time (Comfort, 2008; Swanson et al., 2013). Inmates often report that prison is the only place where they have been sober for extended periods (Travis and Waul, 2003). In the absence of treatment, however, this form of ‘coerced sobriety’ is merely a temporary reprieve from broader complex problems. Yet, for families, the visitation setting represents a forum for change in the midst of negativity (Christian and Kennedy, 2011; Tasca, 2015).

The emotional dynamics that unfold during prison visits can be positive or distressing, depending upon family relationships and stressors before imprisonment (Arditti, 2012; LaVigne et al., 2005). In some cases, caregivers may use the visit to express frustration over their current circumstances (Enos, 2001). In one study on incarcerated mothers, grandmothers used prison contact to scold their daughters over their poor life choices and children’s problem behaviors (Brown and Bloom, 2009). Alternatively, other research found that incarcerated men and children’s mothers were able to empathize with one another, which helped to improve fathering identities and ultimately their relationships (Roy and Dyson, 2005). Similarly, Einat et al. (2013) discovered that through interaction with their children during prison visitation, incarcerated men found new meaning in fatherhood, including the ability to “teach” their children important life lessons. Other research illustrates how prisoners attempt to persuade caregivers that their children’s needs will be a priority and promise to make up for past mistakes (Gilham, 2012).

A key dimension of prison visitation is support. Prison visitation has been found to increase the likelihood of family support after incarceration and is associated with reduced levels of family conflict (Mowen and Visher, 2015). Studies reveal that in exchange for support, caregivers expect prisoners to contribute their fair share to meeting the family’s needs, particularly with respect to parenting responsibilities (Brown and Bloom, 2009). Considered within the context of prior stressors, resolving the past and negotiating the future likely become central features of the visitation exchange (Comfort, 2008; Roy and Dyson, 2005).

Despite advancements in the prison visitation literature, we know relatively little about the familial processes that unfold during the visit itself. Considering the mixed findings on the impact of prison visitation on recidivism, scholars note the need for studies that tap into the nature of visitation experiences, across a diverse group of prisoners and visitor types (Cochran and Mears, 2013). Our study seeks to fill this void by considering the nature of interpersonal exchanges during visitation among incarcerated parents, caregivers, and children. In so doing, we are able to inform efforts aimed at improving reentry success, offender rehabilitation, and family well-being.

Current focus

In order to gain greater insight into how incarceration shapes family life, it is crucial to identify familial processes that manifest during the incarceration period itself. The objective of the current study, therefore, is to examine family processes among incarcerated parents, caregivers, and children during prison visitation. We rely on in-depth interviews with caregivers of children whose mother or father is in prison. In particular, we place empirical focus on caregivers’ detailed accounts to identify the interactions that take place among family members and the nature of their personal exchanges. The family members in our study include a broad range of caregivers (i.e., mothers, fathers, grandparents, other relatives, nonrelatives), who are racially and ethnic diverse (i.e., White, African American, Latino/a, American Indian)—just like the incarcerated men and women they visit. Our study makes an important contribution to research and policy alike in that we are moving beyond a focus on the romantic relationships of mostly male partners, or the prison environment itself, to that of the complex dynamics that unfold among family systems during imprisonment. To that end, we identify how visitation interactions and exchanges attempt to unite and transform a fragmented family.

Method

We rely on visitation data from a larger study on the effects of incarceration on children and families in Arizona. Data were drawn from in-depth interviews with 100 caregivers of children experiencing maternal or paternal incarceration. Caregivers included a diverse group of individuals residing in Maricopa County, Arizona who were providing care for children whose parents were in prison.¹ The goal of the interviews was to explore the ways parental incarceration impacted the lives of caregivers and children.

Trained project staff completed semi-structured interviews with caregivers between October 2010 and March 2011. Participation was voluntary and caregivers were paid 50 dollars for a 60–90 minute interview. Participants were recruited through telephone calls and letters mailed to home addresses.² Interviews were conducted in private offices and conference rooms at Arizona State University. All interviews were audio recorded and later professionally transcribed.

A key component of interviews was whether and how family members stayed in contact with incarcerated mothers and fathers. Caregivers were asked whether visitation occurred, the challenges associated with visiting the incarcerated parent, and what transpired during visits. The open-ended nature of the questions enabled probing of the detailed accounts of the exchanges that took place among prisoners, caregivers, and children during visitation. Further, caregivers provided detailed information about their caregiving experiences and challenges as well as insight into the prisoner’s prior parental involvement and life circumstances. In all, caregiver narratives provided important context—particularly with respect to preincarceration circumstances—necessary to gain a deeper understanding of the family processes that manifest during visitation.

In the ADC, regular visitation occurs during two four-hour blocks every Saturday and Sunday.³ Upon clearing metal detectors, having identification checked and clothing approved, visitors proceed to the prison visitation room on foot or are transported by bus. A kiss or embrace is permitted at the beginning and end of each visit and holding hands is also allowed. Children under the age of six may sit in the prisoner’s lap while visiting. A typical visitation room contains a number of small tables where families may sit together, converse, and share food that visitors may purchase from vending machines. On special occasions, as part of an earned incentive program for good behavior, eligible inmates are allowed “food visits” in which visitors can bring homemade or prepurchased meals into the prison. A small outside area is also accessible to inmates and their visitors to walk around in, smoke, or for additional seating.

It is important to note that our focus is not on barriers to prison visitation or the prison environment itself, as prior work has examined these issues extensively (Comfort, 2008; Hairston, 1991; Nurse, 2002). Rather, we investigate the interpersonal exchanges that take place among family members during visits, which have implications for family functioning during and after incarceration. To do so, we rely on the experiences of 52 caregivers of children who indicated they had visited children’s parents in prison in Arizona (see Table 1 for sample characteristics).⁴

Table 1.

Sample characteristics by theme (N = 52)

	Family time (N = 52)	Attempts to bond (N = 17)	Declarations of family responsibilities (N = 23)	Messages of reform (N = 21)
Type of incarceration
Maternal incarceration	50.0	52.9	47.8	38.1
Paternal incarceration	50.0	47.1	52.2	61.9
Caregiver characteristics
Caregiver–other parent	44.2	47.1	39.1	47.6
Currently together	47.8	62.5	44.4	30.0
Caregiver–grandparent	48.1	47.1	47.8	47.6
Caregiver–other family	5.8	5.9	8.7	4.8
Caregiver–nonrelative	1.9	0.0	4.3	0.0
Public assistance	78.8	82.4	69.6	71.4
White	34.6	29.4	34.8	38.1
African American	21.2	11.8	30.4	23.8
Latino/a	36.5	47.1	30.4	28.6
American Indian	7.7	11.8	4.3	9.5
Prisoner stressors
Mental illness	34.6	29.4	30.4	47.6
Substance abuse	80.8	76.5	78.3	95.2
Prior parental involvement	61.5	70.6	56.5	57.1
Prior imprisonment	44.2	58.8	43.5	28.6
CPS involvement	28.8	29.4	30.4	19.0
Prisoner characteristics
Violent offender	23.1	17.6	26.1	33.3
Drug offender	34.6	29.4	30.4	42.9
Property offender	32.7	41.2	34.8	19.0
Public-order offender	7.7	11.8	4.3	4.8
White	25.0	17.6	17.4	33.3
Black	30.8	23.5	34.8	38.1
Latino/a	36.5	52.9	34.8	23.8
American Indian	7.7	5.9	13.0	4.8
Number of minor children (M; SD)	2.2; 1.1	2.1; 1.3	2.2; 0.9	2.2; 1.1
Sentence length (months; M; SD)	42.9; 37.1	42.1; 25.5	47.0; 45.7	47.4; 46.1
Time to release (months; M; SD)	22.6; 32.9	17.3; 22.9	27.5; 38.5	30.2; 39.8

To ensure inter-rater reliability, analyses proceeded in several stages. First, two authors independently read each transcript to identify overarching themes present in caregiver accounts. Then, the authors used an open coding strategy (Charmaz, 2014) to pull out relevant and common aspects of visitation encounters. Next, all authors convened over several meetings to discuss and compare open codes and decide how they should be conceptualized (i.e., axial coding). Finally, two authors recoded the interviews relying upon the newly developed axial codes, which resulted in four main themes that are presented in the findings. Overall, the authors varied little in coding differences but when discrepancies arose, the three authors reviewed and discussed each case until consensus was reached.

Findings

In our analysis of 52 caregiver interviews, four themes emerged that shed light on family interactions and processes during prison visitation. First, was the universal occurrence of Family Time (N = 52) which centers on how families physically engage with one another through shared meals and playing games. During this time, however, intense discussions on family life were taking place. Specifically, three “familial processes” capture the exchanges that manifested during Family Time interactions: Attempts to Bond, Declarations of Family Responsibilities, and Messages of Reform.⁵ Below, we describe caregivers’ accounts of these exchanges.⁶

Family Time

Family Time was embedded in all 52 caregiver narratives. Despite the multitude of challenges associated with prison visitation, all caregivers described that visitation provided an opportunity to simply “be together.” Consistent with prior research (Christian, 2005; Comfort, 2008), caregivers discussed (re)creating a sense of “family” while visiting incarcerated parents with food, play, and physical comfort (i.e., holding hands).

A central aspect of Family Time is the recreation of meal preparation and sharing within the carceral setting. Rose, a White grandmother caring for her one-year-old grandson during her own son’s incarceration, described how the family would construct a makeshift lunch from vending machines to, “sit down and have a meal just like you would at home.” Other caregivers described the importance of children having the opportunity to interact with their mother or father—sometimes for the first time—by “playing catch” or “reading stories.” Erin, a White mother who would take her eight-year-old son to visit his father in prison explained:

Visits gave them an opportunity to play. They did have balls, you know, where they could play outside and play card games. They couldn’t have a lot of physical interaction but they could hug and stuff like that.

Other caregivers depicted similar Family Time interactions:

He’d run up and give her a hug and we would play games and play cards. She’d take him to the door where you can look out onto the yard and see basketball courts and different things that you can do outside. Then there were women that were in the kitchen where she used to work and she introduced them to her son and they just would laugh and have a good time (Maternal Incarceration, Grandmother, White).

The prison had games so she would grab the game with the cards. They were always saying “mama, mama” and changing laps with her (Maternal Incarceration, Father, American Indian).

Thus, Family Time centered on the physical interactions and activities that prisoners, caregivers, and children engaged in while visiting. The notion of “togetherness” was at the root of the family visitation experience. Indeed, Family Time, at least temporarily, created a sense of “normalcy” in family relations against a backdrop of prior stresses from strained relationships, prior drug use, criminality, mental illness, and limited parental involvement. Importantly, however, analyses further revealed that beneath the surface of these physical interactions, three key processes played out that illuminated the complicated inner-lives of these vulnerable families.

Attempts to Bond

One familial process discovered in analyses involved caregivers’ Attempts to Bond (N = 17). Such efforts were aimed at (re)establishing relationships between children and their incarcerated mother or father. For this group, children’s relationships with their parents were characterized by caregivers as either strained or non-existent. Although the vast majority of these parents were involved in their children’s lives before confinement, caregivers typically described parents as “strangers” to their children given extensive imprisonment histories. In fact, nearly 60% of these 17 prisoners had served at least one prior prison term, relative to 44% of all visited prisoners (N = 52). There were fewer violent and drug offenders in this group and these prisoners had the shortest time until release. African Americans were underrepresented, while Latino/as were overrepresented. Nearly two-thirds of parent caregivers were in a current romantic relationship with the prisoner compared to only 48% of the full visited sample.

Here, caregivers were determined to bridge the emotional distance between parents and children, and the prison visitation room provided the setting by which they could work towards this goal. Efforts to form or repair parent–child relationships during visitation manifested in a variety of ways. In some cases, caregivers’ parental bonding efforts were met with resistance in light of strained prior relationships. Maria, a Latina grandmother, explained how a central aspect of her family’s visitation experience consisted of her own efforts at repairing the relationship between her grandchildren and their incarcerated mother, strained from their mother’s prior absence, neglect, and long battle with addiction:

We’ll visit her and I’ve told them, “Try to go over there and stay with your mother.” They get hurt and they will tell her, “I don’t want to see you anymore.” I tell them, “Don’t say that. No matter what, she’s your mother and you don’t disrespect her.” The way they are with me, that’s how I want them to be with their mother.

For others, initial hesitation demonstrated by children in response to caregivers’ efforts at facilitating parent–child relationships lessened as the visit progressed. Loraine, an African American grandmother, explained the process by which her grandson began to let his guard down with his soon-to-be released mother:

My daughter walked into visitation and she immediately started crying. She says to [her son], “you have gotten so big, you are so handsome.” He didn’t say much. It was like he met a stranger. It was so uncomfortable and awkward. We sat at a table and my daughter was so upset. She kept saying, “He hates me. How could I have done that to him?” I told her, “He doesn’t know you. You know what, that is not why we are here, let’s get involved in a game.” So we played Yatzee and Uno. He opened up a little bit. And I thought, okay, so let’s just keep going at this rate.

Kelly, a White mother whose current fiancé was incarcerated while she was pregnant with their now seven-year-old daughter, described how visits were spent simply getting to know one another:

I was two months pregnant [when her father was incarcerated]. Over the years, I talked about him a lot, I showed her pictures of him, and I made sure that she knew who he was. So we would visit mostly for them, for their relationship. So, it was definitely better for their relationship that she was able to see him and he was able to be involved somewhat. She would tell him what her week was like. She started to get used to talking to him and being comfortable talking to him.

In sum, Attempts to Bond were characterized by highly vested caregivers working towards building or repairing parent–child relations strained by prisoners’ extensive criminal histories. Similar to Comfort’s (2008) work which showed the unwavering commitment of some visitors to stand by an inmate, these caregivers were determined to show solidarity as a family. The interpersonal exchanges born out of such bonding efforts, however, ranged greatly along a spectrum of resistance, hesitation, and acceptance. Thus, Attempts to Bond during visitation were varied and dynamic in nature.

Declarations of Family Responsibilities

Declarations of Family Responsibilities is an additional process that unfolded during prison visitation (N = 23). There were two variants that comprised this theme. The first involved caregivers’ proclamations of the sacrifices and costs associated with caring for children, and at times the prisoner too, in light of economic strain and other hardships. The second variant included caregivers’ and/or children’s assertions of parental roles and duties that incarcerated mothers and fathers should assume. Extensive histories of parental neglect and abandonment—which often stemmed from substance abuse—were experienced by this set of families. Nearly one-third of these 23 prisoners were reported by caregivers to have been involved with Child Protective Services and only 57% of parents were involved with their children before incarceration. For these caregivers and children, visitation was used as an opportunity to “be heard” and demand that these prisoners “do better” by them.

For Richard, an American Indian father of four boys, visits were often used to vent about his responsibilities as a single parent. Despite his girlfriend’s long-term struggle with crack-cocaine and their ongoing involvement with child welfare services, he announced that upon her release, she would be solely responsible for their children’s care:

The kids were running around and around at visit. I said, “I’m not chasing them, you chase them. You haven't seen them.” I told her from the start, “I’ve been here for a year, changing them. I got one out of Pampers, I'm cooking for them, washing clothes and everything.” I said, “That’s your job when you get out because I am not doing it. It is my time to go on vacation now.”

In a similar vein, Deidra, an African American grandmother declared the burdens associated with caring for her two young grandchildren in light of her age and growing health concerns to her son while visiting. She reprimanded him over his incarceration and demanded that he assume his fathering responsibilities. She detailed how her grandchildren witnessed as she unleashed her pent-up frustrations:

[The kids] were quiet the first couple of hours of visit because I was going off on their dad. I said, “Why do I have to do this? You know, you have to be more responsible. You brought them into the world and now you’ve got your ass in prison.” It was frustrating to me because, I’m retired. I have health issues. I did not want the responsibility because it’s too much. [My grandson] was just running all over visitation. I had to go home and apologize to the kids because I owed it to them. They’re very small kids.

For others, visits entailed asserting to prisoners what it means to be a “good parent.” Nora, a Latina great-grandmother has been caring for her grandchildren since their removal from their mother by Child Protective Services for neglect. Nora described how she would lecture her granddaughter on appropriate parenting:

I told her, “They’re not toys. They’re not something you can put in the closet and when you decide to be a mother, take them out. You know, you have to be a mother 24/7. You have to be there for them. You have to be up. You have to make sure they’re safe, make sure they’re fed, bathed, and clothed. I mean, they’re not a puppy. You can’t just say, ‘Well, I’m going to leave right now.” She has to get it through her head that her children should be first.

As shown in the following accounts, children also made assertions to incarcerated parents about “stepping up” in their parental responsibilities during visits. In particular, Jenny—a White former neighbor who has served as the primary caregiver of Ryan during his mother’s most recent imprisonment—recounted how this seven-year-old boy laid out his demands to his mother in light of her history of abandonment, drug use, and involvement with criminal peers:

He spoke to [his incarcerated mother] like a red-headed stepchild. He told her, “When you get out, you can’t see these people anymore.” That’s what he tells his mother. He’s too familiar with things. He tells her, “You have to change your ways, you have to do things.”

Similar to Ryan, Derek, a White 16-year-old youth has also experienced a tumultuous history with his incarcerated father, in which he felt like the “parent.” Derek’s mother, Angela, described how her son confronted his father about how he used to take Derek along when he would steal goods from stores to support his heroin habit. Although Derek shared this story to demand that his father instead get a job and stop his intravenous drug use, his father became angry about Angela learning of his previous actions, concerned that they will no longer visit him. This visitation encounter is narrated below:

He was like, “Dad, you need to quit doing drugs. You need to get a job.” He was like the parent. [My son] was telling me about the time his dad stole in front of him, with his dad right there, and his dad says, “No, I didn’t. You liar.” Of course, that upset [my son] more but his dad didn’t want me to know that he did those things because that would put a stop to the visits.

Together, for nearly half of families, interpersonal exchanges that took place during prison visitation were characterized by caregivers and/or children making Declarations of Family Responsibilities to incarcerated parents. For this set of families, visitation consisted of conveying grievances and attempting to make prisoners—who were most often absent and/or neglectful prior to confinement—accountable as parents. In the face of financial difficulty with limited support, the declaration process was about being heard as much as it was about demanding that the prisoner “step up” to their parental duties.

Messages of Reform

The final theme uncovered in analyses is that of Messages of Reform (N = 21). For these fragmented families, visits gave hope to the possibility of change. One dimension of reform discussions centered on the sobriety and improved mental health of prisoners since incarceration. An astounding 95% of prisoners in this group had a substance abuse problem and nearly half suffered from a mental illness. These prisoners were also more likely to be incarcerated for a violent or drug offense, had the longest amount of time remaining on their sentence and were more likely to be fathers.

The second dimension of reform discussions extended to children, as visits were used as teaching moments to dissuade children from the street life because they could “end up in this place.” Roughly 70% of these incarcerated parents were in prison for the first time, so visitation was a prime opportunity to deliver a message of reform to children experiencing troubles of their own. Consistent with Edin and Nelson’s (2013) research on disadvantaged fatherhood, families used the incarcerated parent’s own life as an example of what children should not do in theirs.

An air of optimism was generated during these visitation encounters. Caregivers described improved relations with prisoners who were clean, who expressed remorse for prior wrongdoings and who promised to change. Kathleen, a White grandmother caring for her grandchild during her mother’s incarceration described how her severely mentally ill daughter has been taking her medication since being in prison. For Kathleen, their previously strained relationship transformed, as revealed in her depiction of their exchanges:

Well, before [my daughter] was incarcerated, she would pick arguments because she wasn’t on her medication. It’s quite different now that she’s taking her medicine. She’s doing great, she seems like she’s changed a lot and we just all get along great now. She’s going to church every Sunday in prison and I said, “Are you going to continue going to church when you get out?” and she said, “Absolutely. Yes, I am and you guys are going with me.”

Other caregivers shared similar experiences in which family dynamics were said to have improved during confinement as a result of the incarcerated parent now sober, available, and attentive. For Talia, a Latina grandmother caring for her grandchild during her own son’s imprisonment, discussed how despite the overflow of emotions that arose during visitation, visits allowed for positive interactions among their family that her son’s drug use had previously prevented:

The first couple of times were just very disappointing, lots of anger, frustration. But at the same time, the visits were nice, really nice because he’s clean now and we have four hours that we actually just spend having quality time, talking. We get to see the positive side of him, even though he’s in prison, it’s a lot more positive than when he was out.

In other cases, messages of reform were directed at children. For instance, Luis, a Latino father of four children, used visits with their incarcerated mother to caution the children against engaging in delinquent behavior. Specifically, he stated, “This is what happens when you break the law, when you do something bad. Your mom is now in big people’s time out. With big people’s time out, though, it is really like a dog in a cage.” Similarly, Isabella, a Latina mother, used visits with her son’s father to teach him the consequences of poor choices in hopes that this will help her son reform his current behavior, resulting from difficulty in controlling his anger:

I’m trying to use his dad in some kind of positive way to show him that this is where people go when they don’t know how to act in the world, they go here. I tell him, “Your father’s here because of what he chose to do, so there’s consequences.” He’s a child with a lot of anger. I’m working on him.

Other caregiver narratives revealed similar visitation experiences in which reform efforts were directed at youth whom caregivers were concerned were beginning to follow a path to criminal involvement. Celeste, a White mother whose husband was incarcerated, described how prison visits primarily consisted of learning opportunities for her adolescent son:

There might have been a few times I went up because I wanted to, but mostly I wanted it to serve a couple of purposes. Look around you; see what you’re having to go through just to visit. This is a place you don’t want to end up. Ever.

Likewise, Taya, an African American mother forewarned her children during visitation with their imprisoned father what their lives would be like if they continued to “get into trouble.” Taya explained how, in her view, these in-prison family discussions centered on reform are a deterrent to crime:

I think seeing their dad and actually stepping foot on prison grounds will make them stay out of trouble. Seeing their dad and all those inmates sitting in there, they said, “I don’t ever want to be here.” We tell them, “[The correctional officers] tell you when to eat, sleep, bathe. You don’t want to go through that. You might end up in fights, you never know, you won’t sleep at ease. You don’t ever want to go through that.” They say, “You’re right.”

Considered together, Messages of Reform were part of a larger rehabilitation process aimed at moving forward. Within the confines of a prison visitation room, these families, on their own, attempted to heal from the stressors of drugs and mental illness. With their eye on the next generation, caregivers, and incarcerated parents—mostly fathers—also used visits to discourage their children from following a prison-bound path. Put simply, messages of reform that were conveyed in these visitation encounters centered on improving family well-being in the short and long-terms.

Discussion

For families experiencing incarceration, prison visitation serves as the sole opportunity for prisoners, caregivers, and children to interact as a family. As a consequence, these individuals are tasked with taking on a multiplicity of issues all within the confines of a prison visiting room. Accordingly, the primary objective of the current study was to explore the content of interpersonal exchanges that manifest during visitation with families, beyond inquiries that center only on romantic partner interactions or barriers to visitation. Our analysis of 52 caregiver interviews reveal that families engaged in four processes during carceral visits—Family Time, Attempts to Bond, Declarations of Family Responsibilities, and Messages of Reform.

All caregivers expressed taking part in Family Time. This finding is consistent with previous work (Christian, 2005; Comfort, 2008), which found that families used prison visitation to create normative familial relations (e.g., sharing meals, playing games). Caregivers’ accounts, however, also revealed more complex familial processes that extend scholars’ previous considerations of the interpersonal exchanges that unfold during visitation. One process centered on Attempts to Bond, in which caregivers strived to bridge the emotional distance between parents and children and (re)establish parent–child relationships. Another process, which was enacted by both caregivers and children, is what we refer to as Declarations of Family Responsibilities. This entailed caregivers relating their sacrifices about caregiving duties to inmates as well as both caregivers and children expressing their expectations of prisoners as parents. Finally, Messages of Reform aimed to advance discussions around positive change, or to discourage children from following in their incarcerated parent’s footsteps.

Punitive criminal justice policies that have largely targeted low-level offenders have separated families at unprecedented rates. Subsequently, the prison visitation room has become a key setting by which the most vulnerable of families attempt to connect and interact. Our study illustrates the importance of examining what transpires during visits, as incarceration not only provides a gateway for connection but also serves as a “reset” in family relations. We discovered that the majority of families were fragmented long before incarceration. As such, many caregivers used prison visits to engage in makeshift forms of “family therapy” as they confronted a legion of problems related to sobriety, parenthood, and mental health. Unfortunately, families are left with little choice but to address these complex issues within a prison visitation room—a location far from ideal, but singularly available.

Our study also underscores the need for scholars and policymakers to further understand family dynamics in the context of prison visitation. Previous studies have revealed that inmate visitation can have significant effects on prisoners and their children (Bales and Mears, 2008; Poehlmann et al., 2010). These family dynamics, whether positive, negative, or both, can impact inmate behavior during and after incarceration, and thus are central to offender rehabilitation and family well-being. To assume all prison visits only involve family time activities, void of any tension, anger, and conflict is not only an inaccurate depiction of these encounters but also hinders attempts to appropriately use the family as an agent of support for inmates. Complex and fragile family relationships must be successfully rebuilt while the prisoner is incarcerated to provide the greatest chance for improved bonds between caregivers, children, and incarcerated parents post-imprisonment. These processes we argue must be acknowledged and addressed both by academics and those committed to addressing the needs of those affected by mass incarceration.

Although our findings provide unique insight into family dynamics during incarceration, this study is not without limitations. Since our data come from the experiences of caregivers in a single state, we do not know the extent to which their visitation experience is generalizable to those visiting loved ones in other states. Related, this study drew upon caregivers’ accounts of visitation encounters which may or may not differ from others’ perspectives or what might have been gleaned through direct observation. Additionally, while our interviews encompassed a diverse sample of individuals, all interviews were completed with caregivers of children of incarcerated parents. Interviewing prisoners about relationship dynamics with a broad range of visitors or interviewing children who visited may have introduced unique aspects regarding family dynamics that did not emerge in the caregiver interviews. That said, as “gatekeepers” of parent–child contact and a key source of support for prisoners, caregivers play an extremely important role in family life before, during, and after parental imprisonment, despite their perspective often being overlooked. Finally, we only analyzed data corresponding to caregivers and children who engaged in physical visitation (52%). Conceivably, other familial processes would be established for those caregivers of children with incarcerated parents who only have contact through phone calls and letters.

In conclusion, we believe the current study to be a significant addition to the visitation literature. The specific nature of family interactions during prison visits have important implications for correctional policy as visitation is the sole opportunity families have to interact face-to-face, be reacquainted, and begin the laborious task of repairing the family unit. Increased understanding of how incarcerated families navigate separation and reunification in the context of the prison setting is critical. Perhaps most importantly, to be successful in bringing about change in the lives of these families requires investment in family-centric therapeutic approaches that target broader issues of family conflict and preexisting stressors (e.g., substance abuse). Agency partnerships between departments of corrections and the nonprofit sector is a potential avenue by which specialized services (i.e., counseling, drug treatment) can be made available to families both during and following incarceration. With that being said, research must continue to shed light on the nature of prison visitation to ensure a greater understanding of how to best piece back together these fragmented families and the collateral harms they endure.

Footnotes

Notes

Melinda Tasca is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Sam Houston State University. Her research interests include correctional policy, the impact of incarceration on families, and the influence of race/ethnicity and gender in the criminal justice system. Her work has been published in outlets such as Criminal Justice and Behavior, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, and the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology.

Philip Mulvey is an Assistant Professor in the School of Criminal Justice Sciences at Illinois State University. Prior to entering academia, he was the Project Manager for the Northwestern Juvenile Project as part of the Health Disparities and Public Policy program at Northwestern University. His focal research interests revolve around the interface between mental illness and the criminal justice system, issues of social control for disenfranchised populations, and criminal justice policy.

Nancy Rodriguez is a Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University. She is currently on leave as NIJ Director. Her research examines the intersection of race, ethnicity, crime, and justice. Her recent work has appeared in journals including Criminology, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Criminal Justice and Behavior, and Violence Against Women.

References

Alexander

(2010) The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, New York: The New Press.

Arditti

(2005) Families and incarceration: An ecological approach. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services 86: 251–260.

Arditti

(2012) Parental Incarceration and the Family: Psychological and Social Effects of Imprisonment on Children, Parents, and Caregivers, New York: NYU Press.

Bales

Mears

(2008) Inmate social ties and the transition to society does visitation reduce recidivism? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 45: 287–321.

Braman

(2004) Doing Time on the Outside: Incarceration and Family Life in Urban America, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Brown

Bloom

(2009) Reentry and renegotiating motherhood maternal identity and success on parole. Crime and Delinquency 55: 313–336.

Cecil

McHale

Strozier

(2008) Female inmates, family caregivers, and young children’s adjustment: A research agenda and implications for corrections programming. Journal of Criminal Justice 36: 513–521.

Charmaz

(2014) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cho

(2009) The impact of maternal imprisonment on Children’s educational achievement results from children in Chicago public schools. Journal of Human Resources 44: 772–797.

10.

Christian

(2005) Riding the bus barriers to prison visitation and family management strategies. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 21: 31–48.

11.

Christian

Kennedy

(2011) Secondary narratives in the aftermath of crime: Defining family members’ relationships with prisoners. Punishment and Society 13: 379–402.

12.

Clear

(2007) Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Worse, New York: Oxford University Press.

13.

Cochran

Mears

(2013) Social isolation and inmate behavior: A conceptual framework for theorizing prison visitation and guiding and assessing research. Journal of Criminal Justice 41: 252–261.

14.

Comfort

(2008) Doing Time Together: Love and Family in the Shadow of Prison, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

15.

Edin

Nelson

(2013) Doing the Best I Can: Fatherhood in the Inner-City, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

16.

Einat T, Rabinovitz S and Harel-Aviram I (2013) Barred from each other: Why normative husbands remain married to incarcerated wives—An exploratory study. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1177/0306624X13512768.

17.

Enos

(2001) Mothering from the Inside: Parenting in a Women’s Prison, Albany: SUNY Press.

18.

Geller

Garfinkel

Western

(2011) Parental incarceration and support for children in fragile families. Demography 48: 25–47.

19.

Gilham

JJM

(2012) A qualitative study of incarcerated mothers’ perceptions of the impact of separation on their children. Social Work in Public Health 27: 89–103.

20.

Giordano

(2010) Legacies of Crime: A Follow-up of the Children of Highly Delinquent Girls and Boys, New York: Cambridge University Press.

21.

Glaze

Maruschak

(2010) Parents in prison and their minor children (Report No. NCJ 222984), Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

22.

Hairston CF (1991) Family ties during imprisonment: Important to whom and for what? Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 18: 87–104.

23.

Hanlon

Carswell

Rose

(2007) Research on the caretaking of children of incarcerated parents: Findings and their service delivery implications. Children and Youth Services Review 29: 348–362.

24.

LaVigne

Naser

Brooks

(2005) Examining the effect of incarceration and in-prison family contact on prisoners’ family relationships. The Prison Journal 21: 314–335.

25.

Lopoo

Western

(2005) Incarceration and the formation and stability of marital unions. Journal of Marriage and Family 67: 721–734.

26.

Mackintosh

Myers

Kennon

(2006) Children of incarcerated mothers and their caregivers: Factors affecting the quality of their relationship. Journal of Child and Family Studies 15: 579–594.

27.

Maruna

Toch

(2005) The impact of imprisonment on the desistance process. In: Travis

Visher

(eds) Prisoner Reentry and Crime in America, New York: Cambridge Press.

28.

Mowen

Visher

(2015) Drug use and crime after incarceration: The role of family support and family conflict. Justice Quarterly 32: 337–359.

29.

Murray

Farrington

Sekol

(2012) Children’s antisocial behavior, mental health, drug use, and educational performance after parental incarceration: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 138: 175–210.

30.

Nurse

(2002) Fatherhood Arrested, Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

31.

Owen

(1998) In the Mix: Struggle and Survival in a Women’s Prison, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

32.

Poehlmann

Dallaire

Loper

(2010) Children’s contact with their incarcerated parents: Research findings and recommendations. American Psychologist 6: 575–598.

33.

Roy

Dyson

(2005) Gatekeeping in context: Babymama drama and the involvement of incarcerated fathers. Fathering 3: 289–310.

34.

Sharp

Marcus-Mendoza

(2001) It’s a family affair: Incarcerated women and their families. Women and Criminal Justice 12: 21–49.

35.

Snyder

(2009) Keeping families together: The importance of maintaining mother–child contact for incarcerated women. Women and Criminal Justice 19: 37–59.

36.

Swanson

Chang-Bae

Sansone

(2013) Incarcerated fathers and their children: Perceptions of barriers to their relationships. The Prison Journal 93: 453–474.

37.

Tasca M (2015) The Gatekeepers of contact: Child-caregiver dyads and parental prison visitation. Criminal Justice and Behavior. DOI: 10.1177/0093854815613528.

38.

Tasca

Turanovic

White

(2014) Prisoners’ assessments of mental health problems among their children. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 58: 154–173.

39.

Tonry

(2012) Punishing Race: A Continuing American Dilemma, New York: Oxford University Press.

40.

Travis

Waul

(2003) Prisoners once removed: The children and families of prisoners. In: Travis

Waul

(eds) Prisoners Once Removed: The Impact of Incarceration and Reentry on Children, Families and Communities, Washington, DC: Urban Institute, pp. 1–30.

41.

Turanovic

Rodriguez

Pratt

(2012) The collateral consequences of incarceration revisited: A qualitative analysis of the effects on caregivers of children of incarcerated parents. Criminology 50: 913–959.

42.

Visher

(2013) Incarcerated fathers: Pathways from prison to home. Criminal Justice Policy Review 24: 9–26.

43.

Wakefield

Wildeman

(2014) Children of the Prison Boom: Mass Incarceration and the Future of American Inequality, New York: Oxford University Press.